Review: Finding Bliss (2010)

It’s become increasingly impossible for any movie, whether mainstream or independent, to depict the porn industry with anything approaching accuracy. Show a penis — even a flaccid one — and you’ll be given the NC-17 stamp of death. Show any sexual act and, as the 2006 documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated sufficiently demonstrated, be prepared to get into a lengthy censorship battle with the MPAA. But feel free to maim or kill another human being and you’re likely to garner a PG-13. One of the ongoing hypocrisies about American culture is that violence remains fun for the whole family, while any hint of sexuality is considered Puritanical. Sex isn’t strictly verboten. Just don’t expect to get your film distributed within the present system.

In Finding Bliss, writer-director Julie Davis — who mined similar territory in Amy’s Orgasm — does her best to work her material around this problem, visualizing her adult entertainment production company (Grind Productions) as a locale with screwball possibilities. (It can’t be an accident that a poster of My Man Godfrey hangs in the main character’s apartment.) Leelee Sobieski plays Jody Balaban, a fresh film school grad who did not remind this writer of the actor Bob in any way. She can’t get a job. Even Garry Marshall (playing himself) won’t return her messages. She needs to make her movie, but she isn’t quite willing to pay her dues. Yet despite this steadfast drive, Jody proves quite diffidently vanilla in her sexual attitudes. She gets an editing job at Grind, figuring that she can secretly make her film at night using the surprising resources at her disposal at night while cutting together banging during the day.

The idea that true outsider art can only originate from porn’s “anything goes” exigencies isn’t a bad one for a comedy. Jody’s quest for clandestine respectability is shared, in part, by Grind, who hopes to make a film that can at long last play in mainstream theaters. This is also a production company where actors actually rehearse their lines around a table — an implausible joke that doesn’t quite pay off, but that permits a few meet cute moments. In one of the film’s surprisingly sparse concessions to perversity, Jody finds herself masturbating to the material she’s editing. She falls for disgraced director Jeff Drake (Matthew Davis), who is discovered to have once been a hot art house director and who is now pumping out porn at a steady clip. Drake, however, is remarkably faithful in his relationships. He eschews the casting couch favored by Hollywood and porn alike. When Jody’s initial cast learns of the ruse and flies the coop, Jody is forced to finish her film with porn actors. Jody’s opus is a run-of-the-mill coming-of-age drama that can be found in needless abundance at any third-tier film festival. The film seems to be suggesting that some middle-of-the-road adult entertainment company is now required to flood the marketplace with derivative independent films. (This is interesting when one considers that 1975’s Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS was shot using the Hogan’s Heroes sets. Can one even imagine an underground film being made today using the sets for Modern Family?)

Davis’s film is somewhat entertaining. She’s helped in large part by her cast. Sobieski has been rightly heralded as a serious dramatic actress. It’s a pity, however, that this very talented actress isn’t cast in more comedies. Even when asked to go needlessly over-the-top in a few reaction shots, she manages to sell her character’s pigheaded predicament without coming across as needlessly steely. (Had Katherine Heigl been cast in this film, Finding Bliss surely would have been a disaster.) We very much believe in Jody’s hangups, even if we don’t quite believe in the material. Matthew Davis is also pretty good, imbuing his character with a cocksure unctuousness. The criminally underemployed Kirsten Johnston, whose snappy quirks haven’t quite been understood by casting directors since 3rd Rock from the Sun, is also on hand as a co-worker. Even Denise Richards, who is best known for bimboing it up ten years ago, daringly announces to Jody (and the audience) near film’s end, “I’m a better actress than you thought.”

So Davis has cast well. She knows how to appropriate the best moments from other romantic comedies, such as the rooftop scene from The Goodbye Girl, for emotional effect. And Finding Bliss is much better in using porn as a refuge for misfits than, say, Kevin Smith’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Unfortunately, Davis’s film (much like Jody’s) doesn’t entirely trust itself. Instead of letting the audience read the conflicted emotions on Sobieski’s face, the film prefers to bombard us with imaginary voices for Jody to react to. It’s almost as if Davis doesn’t entirely trust her character, much less Sobieski. There’s one scene that Sobieski plays, sitting in an awkward position with her knee up. And this comes across as desperate blocking that needlessly delimits the film’s potential. The film is also awkward when Jody’s parents enter the equation and when, during conversations between Jody and Jeff, it brings up the tired philosophy of women being aroused by more than just an emotional connection. It’s on firmer ground when trusting in the quite mythical Grind, and pursuing the film’s artificial disparity between mainstream and adult entertainment which reflects the very real discrepancies between how Americans live and what our national culture allows us to reveal about ourselves. This film didn’t need Ron Jeremy or Stormy Daniels — who both show up near the end. Had it called more bullshit on the self-imposed censorship system that prohibits real human emotion and real art from flourishing, it might very well have lived up to screwball subtext.


  1. What a purRfectly

    Clear Mess out

    of the Rating system

    has been made by

    the Powers that be.

    As per usual, they’re one toke over the line.

    Heartfelt thanks for taking the irrational gatekeepers to task.

    BTW, apropos of nothing, Leelee’s from the UPW. A friend of a friend of a friend’s daughter, I heard that she once used the same teabag twice. More boiling water, same T-bag. Now that’s what I call down to earth—down right democratic!

  2. Actually, when it comes to the rating system, the REAL sexism has to do with the censorship of FEMALE genitalia, not male genitalia! I can name over 100 movies that showed a penis and still received an R ratin from the MPAA. But if actual female genitalia is shown (anything more than pubic hair) the MPAA gives it an NC-17 rating!

    How come the entire male genitalia can be shown (pubic hair PLUS penis and scrotum) but only pubic hair can be shown of women? (the actual genitalia, such as the clitoris and labia, cannot be shown) Even this film “Finding Bliss” showed a clear shot of va semi-erect penis. Of course there was no VAGINA shown. When was the last time you actually saw a clear shot of FEMALE genitalia (the clitoris, labia, or anus) in a movie? The answer is ….NEVER. But there have been several films that showed penises an received R-ratings, including very graphic close-ups. (such as Bruno, Walk hard, Sex and The City, Finding Bliss, Observe and Report, etc.) How come male genitalia can be clearly shown but not female genitalia? Why can we see a clear shot of a penis but never a vagina? How come Hollywood and the MPAA have vagina-phobia? And why do dumb writers always INCORRECTLY claim that penises are censored by the MPAA, while not pointing out the fact that vaginas have never been shown in R-rated films??!!!

  3. Kelly: If you’re calling me dumb and full of come, that’s your opinion. You’ve misread the review. (Note the qualifier “even a flaccid one” in the sentence that caused your fulminative tizzy.) Please cite an R-rated film that featured an erect penis and perhaps the discussion here can be more penetrating. I’ve been writing about the double genitalia standard for a good seventeen years. (Just search USENET!) We need more graphic sex in movies. Period.

  4. Edward Champion, if you’ve been writing about the genital double-standard for so long, then how come you are so goddamn wrong about it?? The real double-standard is that full male genitalia can be shown in R-rated films, but NOT full female genitalia. THAT is the double-standard. How come every part of the male sexual anatomy can be shown (pubic hair, balls, and penis) but actual female genitalia (the vulva or anus) cannot be shown? The most we see of women is pubic hair, which is just body hair and is NOT genitalia. A woman’s genitalia is her clitoris, labia, or anus. There are no films that have clearly shown this and passed with an R-rating. But there are many films which showed full male genitalia (penis and testicles) that have been passed with R-ratings. THAT is the double-standard!

    As for erect penises, the erect penis is the same as showing a spread-open (going “pink) vagina or a penetrated vagina. When the penis is erect, its in a PENETRATABLE state, which is the same as showing a vagina in a penetrated state. They will never show a vagina in a penetrated state, so why should they show the penis in a penetratable state (erection)?

    Furthermore, some films HAVE shown images of erect penises and still been passed with an R-rating. In the film Bruno, the actor’s penis is shown in a video becoming erect and pointing towards the camera and “talking”. If the scene had been reversed, and it featured a woman’s spread vagina talking, that would definitely have been rated NC-17. This is the double-standard of the MPAA. The MPAA unfairly and sexistly rates female nudity more harshly as a form of censorship.

  5. This is the best response I have ever read by a woman. More women like you are needed for true equality because there is a clear double standard. Who can argue that penis is not mainstream after jackass 3D. Would they ever show a woman urinating into an airplane engine or wearing a camera that showed a close up of her vagina ( not to say hitting a ball). No way (not that I would want to see it) but even the producer of Harold and Kumar said they had to have the women wear merkens to make sure vagina wasn’t shown to get an R rating in the party scene. This is so wrong.

  6. Kelly: Thanks for returning here, and my apologies for a late reply. (Covered the NYFF and then headed out of town.) I’m hoping to jump in here later with a through reply to your remarks. I don’t think we disagree too much. I’ll just say for the nonce that we should probably distinguish between genital penetration and penetrative state. I’m suggesting that more R-rated presentations of the former will lead semantics involving the latter to be more or less null. But more on all this later. In the meantime, if you haven’t checked out this recent Jezebel/Spangle article on the subject, you might wish to:

  7. The nudity (or rather genital) double standard is rather amazing. There has been a virtual flood of films over the past couple of years that show penis. Take Jason Segel in Saving Sara Marshall. You also have Bruno, Borat, Mall Cop, Eastern Promises staring Viggo Mortensen,
    Zack and Miri Make A Porno, The Hangover, Sex and The City (First film), or Walk Hard. I could go on, but the fact is penis is now a regular in a good portion of R-Rated fims.

    Yet to this day a vagina has NEVER been shown in a main stream R-Rated film. All you ever get is fleeting glimpses of hair. This was understandable in the 60s through 90s, but this day in age most women (and even men) groom themselves. If a typical woman was to be viewed nude her pubic hair would not be totally concealing the vagina, yet you never see a woman groomed in a moden day style in an R-Rated movie.

    Frontal nudity means you see genitals. With women they only show hair (and many times fake hair). There is, in essence, NO SUCH THING AS FRONTAL NUDITY for women in cinema.

    I can’t believe that every woman who appears nude in a Hollywood film just happens to have 70s bush. This has to be intentional. I even read that they use pubic strips (fake pubic hair) to cover the vagina.

    This even extends to prime time shows on Cinemax and Showtime (not the late night stuff).
    Whether it was Oz, or Tell me you love me, or Rome, you name the show and at some point during that series run there was an episode where a penis was shown. So, what about vagina? NEVER. Not even once.

    Take Spartacus on STARZ. Every other episode shows penis. In fact the men are friggin shaved to maximize the visual. Yet in the one or two instances where a woman was totally nude all you got was hair. In fact it clearly looked as though they placed fake hair on the pubic region as one of the girls looked like she had 3 SOS pads taped to her pelvic bone.

    Take the current Jack Ass and switch it around and have nude women (shaved) doing all these stunts. It would either get an NC-17, or the bits would be cut. The fact that it got tagged with the male nudity warning is because genitals are shown. With women it never is.

    The bottom line is Penis is now common in mainstrean films, yet to this day a vagina has never been shown.

  8. Actually, most female pubic hair in movies is a stuck on patch of fake hair, not their real pubes.

  9. So much to say here – though I see the comments on this forum are quite old so this probably won’t be seen by many…

    Firstly – have any of you actually seen a woman’s body? It sure doesn’t sound like it. The thing is, you cannot actually SEE a vagina externally. It is an internal organ of the body. The most you would see in full frontal nudity – even with a completely shaved pubic area – is a line of vulval cleavage. That’s it. So in full frontal nudity terms, a normal female would show a bit of hair (or none) and an inch or two of vulval cleavage (basically a line), and a normal (unaroused) male nude would show a dangling penis with a part shown/part hidden view of the testicle sac behind. That’s it. That’s normal.

    To see an erect penis we just have to stand and look – we don’t have to do anything peculiar to see it. It goes stiff and rises. this exposes the testicular sac (balls) a bit more. We don’t have to put the man in any kind of peculiar postition to see this. We don’t have to zoom a camera in to see it, we don’t have to ask him to get on his back and part his legs for example. We cold see a guy like this in a changing room, walking back and forth, for example. Nothing (too) peculiar.

    However, in order to see a woman’s vagina… we have to do something pretty weird. We have to get her to open her legs wide , we have to get a camera down there and we have to manually pull apart her labia (which enclose and conceal the vaginal opening) in order to show the entrance to the vagina. (The actual vagina itself can never be seen in it’s entirety due to it’s very nature). The equivalent of showing a vagina on-screen would be more akin to a cut-open penis. Think about it. Male and female anatomy do not lend themselves to similar treatment without bringing in a degree of brutality towards the female. The things we see quite naturally in the average male – before and during sex – we do not see naturally in the female. Only the actual male partner would … and if you are wanting to be (visually) in the place of the male partner then it is porn you are looking for my friend, not a film about an adult sexual relationship.

    If we are watching a film that features a straight sex scene (although you can never actually ‘see’ sex on-screen since real sex is all in the head) it is perfectly normal to see the following:
    ~ a guy standing there full frontal naked with his penis and balls on show (just like a guy in the shower, in the changing room etc)
    ~ a woman standing there full frontal naked with (maybe) some pubic hair and a tiny line of cleavage on show.
    ~ the guy with an erection (since he would just be in the same position but there would be increased blood flow to his genitals to cause the erection)
    ~ the woman exactly as before but perhaps more flushed ( as would be the guy) due to arousal, increased heart rate etc.
    ~ the guy and the woman on the bed (or up against the wall or whatever – but I’m just going for very straightforward, missionary, hetero sex here) kissing, touching, and the obvious action of his pelvis on hers.

    For some reason you want to insert a completely unrealistic scene of the woman suddenly facing the camera spreading her legs, pulling her labia apart and showing you the opening to her vagina. What you want is porn my friend – this is not how people in-love make love ……

    It’s clear that some of the posters here are either very inexperienced or perhaps sex-starved generally. Why else be so desperate to go to the movies to get a look at a stranger’s genitalia – and in such an abnormal way? The kind of views you want are the stuff of porn – barnyard animal shots, A going into B etc. I prefer adult human sexuality. Do you break into other people houses, go into their bedrooms and try to stick cameras up between their legs when they are having intercourse? If not then why do you – in effect – want this scenario on film?

    Sex is in the head my friend. Use your imagination and … try to form some normal adult relationships with the opposite sex 🙂

  10. Thank you so much Kelly. The real reason for showing penises but not vaginas is political correctness from feminist and liberals. Those scum don’t care about offending men but are hyper sensitive about offending women. If all their going to show of women is pubic hair then do the same for men! Just imagine if this situation was the other way around! The feminists and and politic correct libs would be going mad. To everyone who feels this way (men and women) don’t just sit there, email anyone connected with TV shows and movies that continue this horrendous sexism to men. Find their contact details online and ask why they find it acceptable to show penises but not vaginas and when will they start showing as many vaginas (vulva, clitoris, ect) as they do penises. Men (and those decent women who support this) must take action now. Email, phone, write to, contact in any way TV channels and movie companies demanding equality in genital exposure. I have done so and so should you. God this whole situation is so sickening. Take action now! If a woman has shaved her vagina you would easily see at least some of it from a full frontal. They show completely shaved penises on TV and films why not shaved vaginas instead of hairy ones or even worse something called a merkin which is a wig to cover a shaved vagina! I think these were used in Game of Thrones and Spartacus. So they’ll show shaved penises but make shaved women put on a vagina wig so people can as usual only see a mass of pubes and not their vagina!!! This is political correct liberal feminism gone mad! Just imagine if the situation was reversed and they only ever dared show men’s pubic hair but all (or at least some) of women’s vagina. The feminist and politic correct mob would go mad. You’ve said that if the camera went between a woman’s legs to see her vagina it would be porn, what then is your opinion about explicit close ups of penises? So if we see a vagina it’s porn but if we see a penis it isn’t porn? Is that what you’re saying? I am absolutely sick to my back teeth of American TV programmes and movies showing penises but NEVER a vagina (except in a 2013 film called TRANCE which if you google it will immediately answer your camera between her legs reply as we see a woman in full frontal with a shaved vagina. You can clearly see at least some vagina on a shaved woman from full frontal so why does American TV and movies insist on only having naturally hairy women or god almighty vagina wigs?! This whole situation literally beggars belief! Just reverse this situation and see how you’d feel if you saw vaginas so often and only ever men’s pubic hair. Feminists rage on and on about sexism and women being on the wrong end of it well I’m telling everyone that as far as sexism on American TV and movies is concerned it’s most certainly aimed against men. You even have feminists and some fluffy liberal men claiming it’s the other way around and that there’s hardly any penises shown but an excessive amount of vaginas!!! What are they watching? They’re clearly confusing vaginas for pubic hair or those hideous vagina hiding sexist merkins. I’m from Britain and the UK used to be like America is until about 15 or so years ago. They wouldn’t dare show a vagina on TV (although they had no problem with woman’s pubic hair) but would show plenty of penises. Mercifully that’s certainly changed and on sex programes they’ll certainly be as explicit showing vaginas as they are with the penis although I still think they show more penises than vaginas. What is it with America? Aren’t Americans embarrassed with this weird situation? And why don’t more women recognize this as supreme political correct feminist sexism against men? Loads of men support women’s causes but I’ve only read two or three women who support men on this issue. If they’re going to show a penis show a vagina and not a mass of pubic hair or a god awful vagina hiding wig! Men should email American TV stations and movie companies demanding they show shaved vaginas just as often as they do penises. Take action and contact these criminals as I have done.

  11. My dear Idaius – please calm down 🙂 Clearly you have little experience of a woman’s body and have no idea where the vagina is. If a woman has completely shaved her pubic hair off and stands full frontal before you – you still won’t see a vagina. You will see a bare pubic area and an inch or two of ‘cleavage’ – a kind of line that shows a split in the labia.

    The vagina is an INTERNAL ORGAN – a tube inside the body. To go into it with a camera (a kind of visual rape) would therefore be the same as opening up a penis to see the tubes inside e.g. the vas deferens tube that the sperm travel along. I think that you are talking about the OPENING to the vagina – but in order to see this you have to do quite a violence to the woman. You would need to have her with legs spread, and her labia pulled apart – not a natural position and not at all equal to male full frontal nudity. The are the unnatural kind of positions shown in porn.

    The male and female bodies can never be equal in terms of what we see on screen. However, in terms of arousal etc, the breasts ARE equal to the penis (regardless of what you might want to believe) since they represent the ‘sexual flower’ on the body. They are the immediately obvious sexual thing – in full frontal nudity – that we see on the female and male respectively. We immediately identify one as male and one as female. We cannot use a like for like ‘logic’ in a situation where one gender’s genitals naturally hang outside the body and the other gender’s are naturally hidden (partly in folds that would have to be pulled apart and partly complete inside the body).

    Why are you so hung up on this anyway? Does your penis compare unfavourable with those shown on screen. Are you worried what your girlfriend might think of you? Two solutions, my friend:
    1. – Don’t go to see these films. Go to see something else.
    2. – Write to the film companies, actors, etc. and ask them to stop showing male genitalia on screen.

    You could also try writing to mainstream actresses and tell them that they should be lying on their backs and adopting weird nude poses to show between-the-legs shots for audiences …. but somehow I don’t think they will do your bidding. For one thing they’d be doing it already if they wanted to ‘cos they’d sure get paid a fortune!

    Not sure how the feminist argument comes in either. How on earth are women ‘hating men’ by no spreading heir legs on screen? Is this something every woman should be doing in order to be ok with us men? If you think that then you are truly weird, dude …

  12. Stevie, it’s bad enough fighting this issue with feminists but when some hen-pecked politically correct liberal fairy like you pipes up it’s even worse. You’ve written a lot on this which shows how worked up you are about it. Yes it would take a weird camera angle to show ALL a woman’s vagina but why can they not show the top third or even quarter of a SHAVED vagina like they did in TRANCE. That would be enough to redress the horrific imbalance. BUT THEY DON’T. If an actress has a shaved vagina they make her wear a merkin! They won’t even allow the top third of her vagina to be show! Why am I so worked up about this you ask? Reverse the situation and show (the top half) of a vagina time and time again but only ever a man’s pubic hair and see how you as a political corrector and the other feminists would feel. Bloody offended that’s how! I have also emailed and facebook messaged well over fifty people from Spartacus and Game of Thrones and only two have replied. Neither of them could answer my question on this subject. I have also emailed the MPAA and some American TV stations. As you can see from the comments men (and some women) are sick of this, all we want is some kind of equality with the upper half of a woman’s vagina being shown instead of a pubic wig! You can reply as many times as you want but I’ll have the last word. I will NEVER EVER yield on this subject and will fight this sexism with a passion!

  13. Clearly this is a big issue for you Idraius. I thought I could help by pointing out how you are inventing a problem that isn’t there – and by injecting some humour into things 🙂 However I can see that you will always ignore the many, many parts of the argument that you just don’t wish to see.

    I’m sad that you hurt so much about this and I’m wondering what you think men have lost – or what women have gained – by this apparent ‘genital inequality’ that you perceive? Part of what you are experiencing is just what many women experience day in day out with images in the everyday media. Our sisters are represented in a much more sexualised way than men are. Yes, it’s happening more to us guys too but, you have to admit, still not nearly as much. What you are feeling is what many women have felt for decades (at least). But you don’t seem to care about that. In fact you start to name call (always the sign of someone losing an argument) …”hen-pecked politically correct liberal fairy” ? Tut, tut, Idraius. Why on earth would someone’s views – just because they differ from yours – be due to a bunch of women dominating a guy to make him say these things? That may be your experience of life, Idraius,but it sure ain’t mine. Some of us have have a wide circle of male and female friends (thats called ‘being normal’). And some of us even have regular sex with women – that’s why I still l know where a vagina is better than you.

    Anatomy Lesson No 3: you CANNOT see a vagina in a full frontal view of a woman even if she has her pubic hair completely shaved. What you are talking about is the vulva – you are seeing the cleavage of the two labia that comprise most of he vulva. For some reason you continue to want to call these fleshy lips a ‘vagina’ – they are not. Look up some illustrations in an anatomy book.

    Btw I freely allow you to have the ‘last word’ – it’s clearly important to you. Since I’m pretty sure we are the only two people reading this shit now, you’re just going to end up talking to yourself in any case.

    My advice: get a job, get a life. Get a girlfriend 🙂

  14. You really are hard-core about this aren’t you? What I and other men (and some women) would be happy with are full frontals such as in the film TRANCE which show at least some vulva and for films/TV to stop censoring the vagina/vulva because they’re scared of offending women when they’ll show penis after penis in graphic close ups. YOU CAN see some vulva from a full frontal! Look at TRANCE! In TV programmes like Spartacus and Game of Thrones they showed penises frequently and graphically yet made the actresses were something called a merkin so that when the director did a full frontal all you saw was a pubic wig instead of the upper half of the woman’s shaved vulva! They showed men’s genitals but censored women’s!!! How would that look if it was the other way around? Below is what one man wrote in a discussion about this in the media:
    Colin, are you serious!? “Not commonplace”, “maybe in the world of pornography…” I have news for you, graphic “MALE ONLY” nudity in PG through R-rated entertainment IS commonplace and quite pornographic. It even includes male only torture porn! ……”Bruno” (Erect Moving/Talking Penis with Opening and Closing Urethra Graphically Shown), “Hall Pass” (Erect Penis), “Magic Mike” (Erect Penis Being Pumped), Both “Hangover’s 1 and 2” (Erect Penises, Fallatio, Bestiality), “Sirens” (Graphic Male Masturbation), “Jack Ass Movies” (Graphic Male Genital Defecation, Graphic Genital Torture and Stunts), “Teeth” (Multiple Graphic Male Genital Mutilation Scenes), “Hostel 2” (Graphic Male Genital Mutilation), “Finding Bliss” (Semi-Erect Moving Penis). Google the rest, you’ll find 100’s more–male only!

    Movie Channels: “OZ” (Graphic Male on Male Rape/Male Genital Nudity), “Spartacus” (Extremely Graphic Male Genital Nudity, Erect Penises, and Graphic Male Genital Mutilation), “Tell Me You Love Me” (Extremely Graphic Hand Job with Graphic Male Ejaculation, Erect Penises), “Rome” (Graphic Erect Penises)”. Other Shows with Graphic Male Genital Nudity: “True Blood”, “Girls”, “Game of Thrones”, “Shameless — Extremely Graphic”, “The Borgia’s”, “Boardwalk Empire”, “Six Feet Under”, “John Adams”, “Gigolos”, “House of Lies”, “Weeds”, “Polyamory”, “The Tudors”, “Queer As Folk”, “Penn & Teller”, “Da Vinci’s Demons”, “Magic City”, “Dave Old Porn”. Again, Google it, the list goes on.

    Now, according to Candice’s own words, you can see just how “Implied” and “Tasteful” male nudity is done! (** rolls eyes **)

    No woman on the face of this earth would ever tolerate these levels of graphic nudity (outside of porn) if the roles were reversed! It would offend them beyond belief, and rightfully so! But in today’s culture, it seems perfectly OK to offend men, even ridicule us for speaking out in protest against this unfair and unprecedented level of MALE ONLY pornographic nudity that we see in today entertainment. And last but not least, we have individuals such as yourself, and Candice, who conveniently deny (when shown the facts) that this level of male nudity doesn’t even exists, or that it’s rare.

    Whether you choose to believe it or not, Hollywood has two sets of rules when it comes the exposure of a man and woman’s sexual organs, what most of us call “A Double Standard”! Everything can be pornographically shown on a man, but not on a woman. Furthermore, they try to spoon feed our society the message that graphically exposing the entire penis is not pornographic and is perfectly acceptable, but simply exposing any part of the Vulva, the outer female sexual organ, is extremely pornographic and forbidden!

    It’s an overtly sexist and obnoxious double standard! One that Candice openly promotes! And a lot of men (expect for you, Colin) are finally waking up and starting to speak out in protest as we are becoming alienated and completely fed up with it, hence the exceedingly greater number of posts here (above my own) that point out this fact.
    So Stevie after having all those facts are you still sure of your argument? Just look how the media graphically shows and mocks the penis but almost never even shows a vulva! As for your comments about women being sexualised in the media for decades, yes they have been but without the media showing their vaginas/vulvas! You are by far the most ardent person I’ve come across in internet forums about this issue and that makes me sick to my back teeth. But let me ask you this, I would like to know where you stand on showing some vulva such as in TRANCE? I’m wondering if you’d have censored it? If so you really are amazing in your view on this subject. Let me know. If you accept something like the TRANCE scene then you clearly aren’t against showing any vulva in films/TV. As for me getting a job, life and girlfriend how do you know I haven’t got them already? I have a job, a full life with many hobbies and had a girlfriend until about a month ago. She completely agreed with me on this subject. Tell me if you’re happy about the vulva scene on TRANCE or whether you would have censored it. Don’t be vague, you know what I mean. Do you think a scene such as that is ok or do you think it should have been censored? Idaius.

  15. Hi there. First of all – I’m sorry I spelt your name wrong. I have a friend with a similar name and I must have mashed them up in my head. But I did it more than once which is bad so … apologies.

    Glad that we’ve got the anatomy thing sorted out at last 🙂 Yes, I’ve seen Trance – good film. I have no problem with Rosario Dawson showing part of her vulva – why would I? I don’t personally know of anyone – male or female – who has a particular problem with it. I simply cannot get worked up about which gender is showing their private parts the most on screen – it just seems crazy. Like I said – what do you think you are gaining (or losing) by one sex showing more than the other? Do you find it embarrassing? Do you feel one sex gets more power over the other if their genitals are displayed more? However, I acknowledge that it upsets you and I think that’s unfortunate.
    (Btw I’m not sure what you mean by ‘hardcore’ in this context – unless you mean that I’ve posted near equally to you… but that would make you hardcore too, no?).

    In regard to lots more penises being displayed on film that even a few years ago .. well, the actors must be prepared to do it, mustn’t they? No one is forcing them. As for actresses using merkins or not shaving pubic areas – well, that must be what they want to do, mustn’t it? No one can actually order them by law to bare all.

    There are a lot of things in the world to get worked up about – war, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, poverty – but whether you get to see a bit more dick or pussy on-screen is surely one of the most trivial things to spend time on. I wish you well in your campaign though 🙂

    This is my last post here by the way as I just can’t find the topic of any further interest.

    I think that a film you might like to view – a mainstream film – is ‘Nine Songs’ by Michael Winterbottom. Lots and lots of vulva and vagina on show. Basically loads of gratuitous sex with both sexes on display – but more female than male. Enjoy!

  16. I’m glad you didn’t object to the vulva scene in Trance. You’re clearly open about men’s and women’s genitals being shown. I thought you were against a vulva being shown but I was mistaken. Yes there are many more worse things than this in the world as you’ve listed and I get just as worked up about them as I do with this and write with a fierce passion about them on internet forums as well. British and American foreign policy and their wars and interfering in other countries is a particularly sensitive issue with me. Perhaps I should take a step back, it’s hard fighting against the world but when you believe in certain things passionately it can be hard not to fight with a passion.

  17. Idaius and Stevie, I’m waiting for the bell to sound for the sixth round. Here is my take and Karen, who is with me, agrees. There is no argument that females have had many more hours of screen time sans clothes. However, in the minds of many, including many females, the real issue regarding nudity in TV and film is the subject of GENITALS, the Only…Actual…Difference…Between…The…Sexes. If I were to scroll through a list of penises that have adorned the big and small screens over the last four decades, up close, for extended periods of time, well lit and, now, semi-erect, I would develop Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. I’m sure the industry is close to hitting the five hundred penis mark, if it hasn’t already, while the female genitals (vulva, labia, clitoris, and vagina) have appeared on screen a total of ZERO times. (Unless you count the “did I just see what I thought I just saw” moment of Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct or Rosario Dawson in Trance. By the way there are a couple of places on line (porn sites, Stevie, porn sites) that showed the seen of Rasorio…well lit. What you see in the movie is a darkened version, much more subdued.)
    I have read or seen about a dozen posts or videos regarding the Double Standard complaints from outraged females. In most cases the argument is, “it’s about time that we are seeing a penis now and then because women have been showing their breasts for decades. We need to see many many more dicks before the guys catch up.” Ladies, one more time,—‘a breast does not equal a penis (and neither does pubic hair or Merkins.) It’s amazing to me that the reverse “version” of the Double Standard is rarely brought up, and when it does, many females just don’t get it. (Note: The industry is run by men and that’s why the disparity. If that is the reason, then we should be in vulva paradise.)
    Here is what I have learned why you won’t, probably ever, see a vulva or its interior parts on film and my take on it. (1) Because the penis is funny, while the vulva, clitoris, labia and vagina are pornographic. WRONG, the male penis, and the female vagina are body parts. Those that label them otherwise have a problem, not the body parts. (2) Female genitals are ugly. WRONG, some may not be all that attractive, but then again, the same applies to the male genitals. (3) The vulva/vagina is hidden from view and should stay that way. WRONG, they are out of sight if the owner wants them to be out of sight. Bend over to pick up a pencil and VOILA. No fancy camera work, no strange angles, just a straight on shot of vulva. (4) The MPAA says they should n-e-v-e-r be on display in any R rated movie. Show it and expect an NC-17 rating. CORRECT, however, ask the MPAA why and they will not give you an answer. If they gave a response it would be the same one mom’s all over the world give their children when asked why; “because I said so, that’s why.”

  18. By the way it’s not just in film that there is a “reverse” Double Standard regarding nudity. I was an art major in college and was also a figure drawing model. I once posed with a female model. Just before the drawings were to begin the instructor asked the female model to adjust her pose because she was showing some “pink.” I asked the instructor if she would like me to tuck my penis between my legs because I was showing some “pink” as well. I was given a dirty look and was never hired back. And, I sure did need the money. Art supplies are not cheap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *